Does "Sin" Prove Evolution to be Incorrect?

[The Barbarian]

On 12/11/2020 at 9:20 PM, Paul James said:

The reason why you can't see that Genesis 1 is absolutely true

I know it's absolutely true.   I also know your particular re-interpretation of it is wrong.

On 12/11/2020 at 9:20 PM, Paul James said:

and that evolution is a total lie

It's directly observed.   Please remember what biological evolution is.   You're confusing evolution (descent with modification, or change in allele frequencies in a population) with a consequence of evolution, common descent.  

As you might know, even many creationists now admit common descent down to or including the level of family.

On 12/11/2020 at 9:20 PM, Paul James said:

God has deliberately sent a delusion to those who refuse to believe the gospel of Christ so that the only option for them is the Judgment.

Fortunately for creationists, God doesn't care that they reject the way He created life's diversity.   It's not a salvation issue.    And since many of them seem to honestly believe their new doctrines, they are not in rebellion against Him.   Creationists, unless they make a new religion of their ideas, are no  less Christian than the rest of us.

On 12/11/2020 at 9:20 PM, Paul James said:

Concerning Christian "experts", anyone can put on the Christian "badge" and call themselves Christian, but that doesn't mean that they are genuinely born again of the Spirit of God.

This is true.   But I'm willing to give anyone the benefit of a doubt, until they show me otherwise.   Most creationists I know, are good and God-loving people, who seek to do His will.

 

Edited December 13, 2020 by The Barbarian

[DSmith_TheHistorian]

https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evolution-not-even-theory/

[teddyv]

12 hours ago, Paul James said:

Replacing God's clear account of how He created the universe with evolution is basically a denial of God's Word.   It is saying that God did not tell the truth in Genesis 1.  Seeing that the Bible says that God's Word is the truth (John 17:17), anyone who says that Genesis 1 is not the truth, cannot really depend on any other part of the Bible, because if one part of the Bible is unreliable, then other parts also are.   It means that God either lied, or He didn't inspire the Bible at all.   I cannot see that any genuinely born again believer can hold that God is a liar or that the Bible is just the work of men and not of God at all.

If you can't accept that truth does not have to equal fact then I guess that's how you will view it 

[Paul James]

22 minutes ago, teddyv said:

If you can't accept that truth does not have to equal fact then I guess that's how you will view it 

Evolution is not fact.   It is an unproven fairy story about how our world might have originated and developed.  God didn't see any reason why we should know exactly how the world was created, otherwise He would have provided a comprehensive scientific text book with illustrations that explains exactly His method of creating everything.   But He didn't.  He just gave us the bare facts, just to inform us that He did the creating by just speaking it into being.

Reminds me of the story about the old pastor who was questioned about what God was doing before He created the universe.  The pastor replied, "Preparing hell for the over-curious!"

[Tristen]

15 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

Good point made.   I was thinking that perhaps if I used Adam and the Creation Story we might look at "Evolution" from the point of the homo sapien and just before to establish where some might think to as which point in human evolution does the sin equation originate.   From a Creation point we know it is with Adam.   But for those who look at Evolution being the process of God's Creation, are they assuming sin began when humans evolved to a point of cognitive and rational thinking?

Agreed!   I am just loosely using the term "Evolution" here for conversation sake.

I am quite amazed how Science has put forth their environment on a imagination to question to seeking answers to formulating Theories without getting into classifications like proofs and truths.   It's true to them, but not necessarily true across the board in general.

A good way of deducting here.   But in general language terminology, I am seeking the point in Evolution that equals the point of Adam's [Awareness] to understand he sinned and now his life would be forever changed by that sin.

 

Of course, some will say man evolved to become Adam, to become Aware, and from then on Evolution as a Theory and the Bible catch up.

OK - So if I understand correctly, you are asking 'theistic evolutionists' at what point in the secular story of human evolution did humans become morally accountable for sin?

As a Biblical (or young earth) creationist, I can not help you with that. My opinion is that God created humans as humans in the exact manner He described in the straight forward reading of Genesis.

 

[Guest kingdombrat]

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

OK - So if I understand correctly, you are asking 'theistic evolutionists' at what point in the secular story of human evolution did humans become morally accountable for sin?

As a Biblical (or young earth) creationist, I can not help you with that. My opinion is that God created humans as humans in the exact manner He described in the straight forward reading of Genesis.

 

I am merely looking for their answers in how they connect the dots to the process of Evolution in all of its variations till we get to Adam, and from Adam (or a point of awareness and conscientiousness) to where sin originates in the evolution process.

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, kingdombrat said:

I am merely looking for their answers in how they connect the dots to the process of Evolution in all of its variations till we get to Adam, and from Adam (or a point of awareness and conscientiousness) to where sin originates in the evolution process.

No one has ever seen Darwinian Evolution, but I would admit it sure has some strong marketing. 

What makes you think Darwinian Evolution has a process considering no one has seen any trace of it?

[Guest kingdombrat]

19 minutes ago, Sparks said:

No one has ever seen Darwinian Evolution, but I would admit it sure has some strong marketing. 

What makes you think Darwinian Evolution has a process considering no one has seen any trace of it?

I am a Creationist 100%

I do think the Earth and Universe are older than 6,000 years but I do not believe in the process of Evolution even though I believe Species do evolve.   Adam evolved from having it made in the "Garden" to learning how to become a farmer, home builder, a father, etc.

[Sparks]

20 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

I am a Creationist 100%

I do think the Earth and Universe are older than 6,000 years but I do not believe in the process of Evolution even though I believe Species do evolve.   Adam evolved from having it made in the "Garden" to learning how to become a farmer, home builder, a father, etc.

Cool about your being a Creationist.

Yes, technology evolves, but there is an intelligence behind that evolution which is driving it; in this case Adam's.  The original iPhone has become about 20 iPhone designs, each better than the last, but this is really innovation and design driven by intelligent humans.  But what we don't see, ever, is Darwinian Evolution, in which kinds of animals become other kinds of animals.  Chemicals 'upgrading' themselves over time, and so on.  If anything, everything devolves.

By the way, there is no real evidence that the Earth or Universe is much older. 

[The Barbarian]

On 12/13/2020 at 9:57 AM, DSmith_TheHistorian said:

https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evolution-not-even-theory/

They've got it confused.   Evolution is an observed phenomenon.   There is a theory that explains it.   Remember, evolution is "a change in allele frequency in a population over time.   Evolutionary theory explains why this happens.    In science, a "theory" is an idea or group of ideas, with predictions that have been repeatedly confirmed by observation

There are many, many confirmed predictions of evolutionary theory, such as Darwin's prediction that early man would first appear in Africa, Huxley's prediction of transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds, and Darwin's prediction that a well-fitted population in a constant environment would be kept from changing very much by natural selection.

Would you like to see some more?

Change in an individual is not biological evolution.   As Darwin originally framed it, it's "descent with modification."    Populations evolve; individuals do not.   Darwinian evolution is new kinds of species evolving, not chemicals changing.   Most people who think they hate evolution, don't know what it is.